ASSET PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT

What the machine already tells you.

This walkthrough covers valves, pumps, motors and heat exchangers. It shows which signals to review and which checks can support a maintenance decision. These are explanatory scenarios, not measured results from a customer installation.

Scroll to begin

CV-318 · Control valve

01
CONTROL VALVES · CONTROL VALVE APP

Understand how the valve responds.

Start with the available command and position data. The checks you can perform depend on signal quality, operating conditions and the instrumentation installed.

CV-318 · Control valve

CV-318Control valve
StictionDeadbandPositioner driftDiaphragm & spring issueController performance
01.1
FAULT 01 · STEM & PACKING

Stiction

Friction can hold the valve in place while the command changes, followed by a sudden movement when it breaks free. Compare the response with operating conditions before attributing the behaviour to packing or another component.

What to check

  1. 01Compare command and travel during opening and closing.
  2. 02Look for repeated sticking and release under comparable conditions.
  3. 03Check packing, linkage, actuator and positioner condition before selecting a repair.

Illustrative example.

Signal vs. travel · 40 sCommand / Travel

96%

Example · Detection rate

6–10 wks

Example · Lead time

+31%

Example · Friction, 90 d

€48k

Example · Loss avoided

01.2
FAULT 02 · STEM CONNECTOR & YOKE

Deadband

After a change in direction, the command may change before valve travel responds. Review the response and mechanical condition to distinguish lost motion from other sources of delayed movement.

What to check

  1. 01Compare the response in each direction.
  2. 02Check whether delayed movement repeats under comparable demand.
  3. 03Inspect the linkage and review positioner settings before attributing the cause.

Illustrative example.

Reversal response · per directionCommand / Travel

93%

Example · Detection rate

8 wks

Example · Lead time

2.2 → 3.4%

Example · Deadband

1.4×

Example · Variability

01.3
FAULT 03 · DIGITAL POSITIONER

Positioner drift

A persistent difference between command and reported position warrants investigation. Check calibration and the position measurement before treating the difference as a mechanical fault.

What to check

  1. 01Compare command and position across the operating range.
  2. 02Review calibration records and signal quality.
  3. 03Verify actual travel before deciding whether calibration or mechanical inspection is needed.

Illustrative example.

Command vs. position · 30 daysCommand / Position

95%

Example · Detection rate

2 wks

Example · Lead time

3.1%

Example · Zero offset

None

Example · Extra hardware

01.4
FAULT 04 · DIAPHRAGM & SPRING

Diaphragm & spring issue

A slow or incomplete stroke can warrant an actuator check. Command and travel data can guide the investigation, but cannot by themselves confirm a damaged diaphragm or weakened spring.

What to check

  1. 01Compare stroke response under comparable demand.
  2. 02Review the actuator supply and available diagnostic data.
  3. 03Use an approved inspection or test procedure to verify diaphragm, spring and fail-safe condition.

Illustrative example.

Held command vs. valve position · 10 minCommand / Position

91%

Example · Detection rate

3–5 wks

Example · Lead time

+18%

Example · Stroke time

0.4 bar

Example · Hold decay

01.5
PERFORMANCE 05 · COMMAND VS POSITION

Controller performance

Compare Command Output with Position Feedback to describe overshoot, undershoot or hunting. These response patterns guide an investigation; they do not establish the cause or a repair deadline on their own.

Overshoot

Illustrative response — synthetic example, not measured plant data.

Command / setpointPosition Feedback

What it means. Control overshoot occurs when Position Feedback moves beyond the commanded setpoint before the control system brings it back to the desired position.

What can contribute. High gain or sensitivity, low damping, disturbances or noise, and wear in the valve or related components can all contribute.

Repeated overshoot can increase process variability and develop into unstable oscillation. The response pattern guides investigation; it does not prove one cause.

Undershoot

Illustrative response — synthetic example, not measured plant data.

Command / setpointPosition Feedback

What it means. Control undershoot occurs when Position Feedback initially falls short of the commanded setpoint before recovering toward the desired position.

What can contribute. Its causes can overlap with overshoot, including tuning or gain, low damping, disturbances, friction, and mechanical condition.

Persistent undershoot means the valve is not delivering the requested travel when it is first needed. Compare the complete response before assigning a root cause.

Hunting

Illustrative response — synthetic example, not measured plant data.

Command / setpointPosition Feedback

What it means. Hunting is repeated oscillation around a stable setpoint: Position Feedback keeps crossing the target while the controller continues to correct.

What can contribute. Poor tuning, high gain, low damping, process disturbances, noise, friction, or component wear may sustain the oscillation.

Hunting creates an unstable, unpredictable response that is harder to maintain and optimise. Diagnose the contributing mechanism before changing tuning or hardware.

Illustrative example.

Illustrative responseCommand output / Position feedback

89%

Example · Detection rate

3 mo

Example · Lead time

−7%

Example · Cv at 60% travel

€120k

Example · Loss avoided

WHAT YOU GET BACK

A finding, the supporting evidence and the next check.

Bring the observed response, possible causes and required checks together. Maintenance scope and timing should follow a verified diagnosis and the site operating requirements.

StictionInspect friction-related causes before selecting packing, actuator or positioner work.
DeadbandCheck lost motion and verify the response after corrective work.
Positioner driftVerify calibration and actual travel; agree any isolation requirements with operations.
Diaphragm & spring issueInspect the actuator using approved procedures and verify its response.
Controller performanceReview tuning and valve condition together before assigning a root cause.

Use the evidence to decide whether the valve needs calibration, inspection or repair. Cost and downtime estimates should come from the confirmed work scope and site records.

02
CENTRIFUGAL PUMPS · PUMP HEALTH MONITORING

Read the pump and its operating conditions together.

Compare hydraulic performance with the available mechanical evidence to guide the investigation. Additional measurements may be needed to confirm the cause.

P-410B · Centrifugal pump

P-410BCentrifugal pump
CavitationImpeller wearBearing defectSeal leakageMisalignment & imbalance
02.1
FAULT 01 · IMPELLER EYE & SUCTION

Cavitation

Cavitation is a possible explanation for a change in pump noise, vibration or hydraulic performance. Review suction conditions and the operating point alongside the equipment data before deciding what action is appropriate.

What to check

  1. 01Review suction pressure, fluid temperature and flow against the pump requirements.
  2. 02Compare available vibration and pressure trends at similar operating conditions.
  3. 03Check restrictions and other possible causes before changing duty or planning an inspection.

Illustrative example.

HF energy vs. NPSH margin · 2 hBaseline / Measured

94%

Example · Detection rate

2 wks

Example · Lead time

0.6 m

Example · NPSH margin

€72k

Example · Loss avoided

02.2
FAULT 02 · IMPELLER & WEAR RINGS

Impeller wear

A change in head or efficiency at a comparable operating point can prompt an investigation of impeller and wear-ring condition. Check the measurements, speed and process conditions before attributing the change to wear.

What to check

  1. 01Compare measured head and flow with a verified baseline at the relevant speed.
  2. 02Review fluid properties, valve positions and measurement uncertainty.
  3. 03Use inspection findings to confirm wear and define the maintenance scope.

Illustrative example.

Head vs. flow · clean vs. nowDatasheet / Current

89%

Example · Detection rate

4 mo

Example · Lead time

−9%

Example · Head at duty

+6.4%

Example · Energy per m³

02.3
FAULT 03 · BEARING HOUSING

Bearing defect

Changes in bearing vibration or temperature can prompt further investigation. The available warning and the appropriate response depend on the fault, operating duty and quality of the measurements.

What to check

  1. 01Review vibration measurements using the bearing details and operating speed.
  2. 02Compare trends at similar load and check lubrication history.
  3. 03Confirm the finding and assess severity before setting an inspection or replacement plan.

Illustrative example.

Envelope spectrum · BPFO bandDefect tone highlighted

96%

Example · Detection rate

8 wks

Example · Lead time

3.4×

Example · BPFO amplitude

+11 °C

Example · Housing temp

02.4
FAULT 04 · MECHANICAL SEAL & POT

Seal leakage

Unexpected leakage or changes in seal-support conditions require assessment against the installed seal arrangement and site procedures. A trend alone does not locate the leak or establish how long the pump can remain in service.

What to check

  1. 01Review available leakage, seal-support pressure, level and temperature records.
  2. 02Account for replenishment, operating changes and instrument condition.
  3. 03Investigate the source and agree the response under the site containment and safety procedures.

Illustrative example.

Barrier loss rate · 60 daysBaseline / Measured

92%

Example · Detection rate

3 wks

Example · Lead time

4×

Example · Loss rate

Zero

Example · Ground spills

02.5
FAULT 05 · COUPLING & BASEPLATE

Misalignment & imbalance

Changes in vibration can warrant checks for misalignment, imbalance, looseness or other causes. Use the operating context and inspection evidence together rather than assigning a fault from a single frequency component.

What to check

  1. 01Review vibration direction, frequency and phase where suitable measurements exist.
  2. 02Check speed, load, coupling condition and recent maintenance.
  3. 03Verify alignment and mechanical condition before deciding on corrective work.

Illustrative example.

Vibration spectrum · 2× line tone2× and sidebands highlighted

87%

Example · Detection rate

6 wks

Example · Lead time

2× line

Example · Dominant tone

2 assets

Example · Consequential wear

WHAT YOU GET BACK

A finding, the supporting evidence and the next check.

Review hydraulic and mechanical evidence together, record what remains uncertain and agree the next check. Continued operation and maintenance timing require a site-specific assessment.

CavitationReview suction conditions and the operating point against the equipment requirements.
Impeller wearValidate performance measurements and confirm condition before specifying replacement.
Bearing defectAssess the supporting measurements and severity before planning bearing work.
Seal leakageInvestigate the source and follow the site containment procedures.
Misalignment & imbalanceVerify mechanical condition and alignment before corrective work.

Confirm whether the performance change is driven by operating conditions or equipment condition before planning the work. Any cost or downtime estimate needs a documented site-specific basis.

03
INDUCTION MOTORS · MOTOR HEALTH MONITORING

Use the available evidence to assess motor condition.

Review electrical measurements alongside operating duty, thermal data and mechanical evidence where available. The checks that can be supported depend on the installed instrumentation and signal quality.

M-230 · LV induction motor

M-230LV induction motor
Broken rotor barsBearing defectInsulation ageingCooling path fouledAir-gap eccentricity
03.1
FAULT 01 · ROTOR CAGE

Broken rotor bars

Electrical measurements can support an investigation of rotor condition when the signal quality and operating conditions are suitable. A current signature alone should not be presented as a confirmed count of damaged bars or a guaranteed warning period.

What to check

  1. 01Review suitable current measurements alongside motor speed and load.
  2. 02Compare repeatable features against the baseline and other possible causes.
  3. 03Confirm the suspected rotor fault through appropriate testing or inspection.

Illustrative example.

Current signature · line ±2sfSidebands highlighted

95%

Example · Detection rate

5 mo

Example · Lead time

−41 dB

Example · Sideband level

2 bars

Example · Estimated

03.2
FAULT 02 · DE & NDE BEARINGS

Bearing defect

Bearing condition should be assessed using the evidence available for the motor. Electrical signals may support the investigation, but additional vibration measurements or inspection may be needed.

What to check

  1. 01Review vibration and temperature records where available.
  2. 02Check lubrication, operating duty and maintenance history.
  3. 03Confirm the suspected fault before deciding on bearing work.

Illustrative example.

Envelope · once-per-pass impulsesBaseline / Measured

94%

Example · Detection rate

10 wks

Example · Lead time

2.8×

Example · Defect tone

€26k

Example · Loss avoided

03.3
FAULT 03 · STATOR WINDINGS

Insulation ageing

Review thermal duty and insulation condition together. A temperature trend alone is not a defensible remaining-life estimate; any estimate needs a suitable model, documented assumptions and supporting condition data.

What to check

  1. 01Review measured temperatures, load and ambient conditions.
  2. 02Check insulation test results and maintenance history where available.
  3. 03Use the motor-specific limits and qualified assessment to decide on further testing.

Illustrative example.

Thermal ageing · 24 monthsDesign / Actual

86%

Example · Detection rate

6 mo

Example · Lead time

118 °C

Example · Hot-spot est.

62%

Example · Life consumed

03.4
FAULT 04 · FAN, COWL & FINS

Cooling path fouled

A temperature change at comparable duty can prompt a cooling-system check. Inspect the cooling path and consider electrical, mechanical and process causes before attributing the change to fouling.

What to check

  1. 01Compare temperature at similar load and ambient conditions.
  2. 02Inspect the fan, cowl and accessible cooling surfaces using approved procedures.
  3. 03Recheck performance after any intervention before closing the finding.

Illustrative example.

Cooling effectiveness · 6 monthsModel / Actual

90%

Example · Detection rate

4 wks

Example · Lead time

+14 °C

Example · Above model

2 h

Example · To fix

03.5
FAULT 05 · AIR GAP & END BELLS

Air-gap eccentricity

Suspected air-gap eccentricity requires a combination of signal analysis and mechanical assessment. A spectral pattern can guide the investigation, but does not by itself establish the location or repair scope.

What to check

  1. 01Review suitable electrical and vibration measurements at known speed and load.
  2. 02Check for related bearing, mounting and alignment findings.
  3. 03Verify clearances and mechanical condition through an appropriate inspection.

Illustrative example.

Slot harmonics · modulationModulation highlighted

88%

Example · Detection rate

4 mo

Example · Lead time

22%

Example · Gap variation

2 faults

Example · Linked

WHAT YOU GET BACK

Evidence to guide the motor investigation.

Bring the available electrical, thermal and mechanical evidence together. State the suspected fault, the checks needed to confirm it and the basis for any maintenance recommendation.

Broken rotor barsConfirm the suspected rotor condition with suitable testing or inspection.
Bearing defectReview lubrication and condition evidence before planning bearing work.
Insulation ageingReview thermal duty and insulation tests against the motor requirements.
Cooling pathInspect the cooling system and verify performance after any intervention.
Air-gap eccentricityConfirm clearances and related mechanical findings before defining the repair.

Use repeatable findings to plan the next inspection. Warning time and repair scope depend on the confirmed fault, operating duty and available evidence; they are not fixed outcomes.

04
HEAT EXCHANGERS · HEAT EXCHANGER MONITORING

Understand the performance change before planning a clean.

Use the available temperatures, flows, fluid properties and exchanger design data to assess performance against a suitable baseline. Validate the measurements before deciding whether cleaning or inspection is justified.

E-220 · Shell & tube exchanger

E-220Shell & tube exchanger
Tube-side foulingShell-side scalingTube leakBypass & maldistributionSensor drift
04.1
FAULT 01 · TUBE BORE

Tube-side fouling

A decline in heat-transfer performance can prompt a check for tube-side deposits. Compare performance at equivalent conditions and validate the instruments before deciding whether cleaning is justified.

What to check

  1. 01Review the energy balance using available temperature, flow and fluid-property data.
  2. 02Compare thermal performance and tube-side pressure drop with a verified clean baseline.
  3. 03Confirm the likely deposit location and assess cleaning options with the maintenance team.

Illustrative example.

U-value vs. clean · 6 monthsClean / Current

96%

Example · Detection rate

3 mo

Example · Lead time

−23%

Example · U-value

€9.4k/mo

Example · Lost duty

04.2
FAULT 02 · SHELL SIDE & BAFFLES

Shell-side scaling

Shell-side deposits are one possible cause of reduced exchanger performance. Review thermal and hydraulic evidence together; the overall energy balance alone may not identify which side needs cleaning.

What to check

  1. 01Compare shell-side pressure drop and flow with an appropriate baseline.
  2. 02Review fluid chemistry, operating changes and previous inspection findings.
  3. 03Confirm the affected surfaces before choosing a compatible cleaning method.

Illustrative example.

Shell dP vs. flow · relative, matched flowClean model / Current

93%

Example · Detection rate

2 mo

Example · Lead time

+31%

Example · Shell dP

Chemical

Example · Clean type

04.3
FAULT 03 · TUBES & TUBESHEET

Tube leak

A tube or joint leak can create a path between process circuits. Unexpected balance or composition changes warrant investigation, but must be checked against measurement error and operating changes.

What to check

  1. 01Check mass and energy balances within the uncertainty of the available measurements.
  2. 02Review composition or conductivity evidence where relevant and available.
  3. 03Follow site procedures to investigate containment and confirm the leak location.

Illustrative example.

Balance residual · 30 daysError band / Residual

90%

Example · Detection rate

2 wks

Example · Lead time

0.9%

Example · Flow residual

Contain

Example · Action

04.4
FAULT 04 · BUNDLE & FLOW PATH

Bypass & maldistribution

Reduced duty can warrant an investigation of flow distribution as well as fouling. Performance data can help frame the inspection, but cannot alone prove a damaged baffle or rule out deposits.

What to check

  1. 01Compare thermal and hydraulic behaviour at comparable operating conditions.
  2. 02Review the design flow path and alternative explanations for the performance change.
  3. 03Use an approved inspection to verify baffle condition and clearances where required.

Illustrative example.

Effectiveness vs. NTU · counterflow, Cr 0.5Design / Current

87%

Example · Detection rate

1 mo

Example · Lead time

−11%

Example · Effectiveness

No

Example · Fouling present

04.5
FAULT 05 · INSTRUMENTATION

Sensor drift

An unreliable temperature or flow measurement can distort the assessment of exchanger performance. Check data consistency and calibration before using the result to justify cleaning or repair.

What to check

  1. 01Compare related measurements and review balance consistency.
  2. 02Check instrument history, calibration and signal quality.
  3. 03Validate the suspect measurement before relying on the associated finding.

Illustrative example.

Raw vs. reconciled · 30 daysReconciled / Raw

97%

Example · Detection rate

Now

Example · Lead time

1.8 °C

Example · Drift

0

Example · False findings

WHAT YOU GET BACK

Evidence for a cleaning or inspection decision.

Review performance loss, measurement quality and possible causes together. The maintenance team can then define the checks needed and assess whether cleaning, inspection or instrument work is appropriate.

Tube-side foulingConfirm performance loss and the likely deposit location before planning a clean.
Shell-side scalingCheck the affected surfaces and cleaning compatibility before specifying the work.
Tube leakFollow site procedures to assess containment and verify the leak location.
Flow bypassInspect the suspected flow-path components where the evidence warrants it.
Sensor driftValidate the suspect measurement before relying on the performance assessment.
Performance baselineReview the baseline against verified post-maintenance measurements.

Plan cleaning when verified performance loss justifies it. Confirm the likely cause, choose an appropriate cleaning method and assess the work against site costs, operating constraints and inspection findings.

WHERE IT LANDS

Our apps, one ranked picture of the plant.

Bring findings from the asset applications into one view, with their supporting evidence, uncertainty and recommended next checks. Maintenance priorities and timing should reflect the site assessment.

Open the Fleet Console ↗
Scroll to Top